[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

[Sonigitu Ekpe]

Dear All,

I think after studying the write up, it is worth supporting.

My 50cents, is to give in my support for the pilot program.

Thank you.

Sonigitu Ekpe

Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179
 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"


On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

>
> Hello everybody,
>
> The NCUC EC will be discussing today whether to participate in an ICANN
> pilot program designed to offer assistance with policy research and
> document drafting to selected constituencies and stakeholder groups. I echo
> the views expressed by Milton on the NCUC EC mailing list when he writes "I
> want to express my strongest opposition to this entire program".
>
> It is tempting. We are launching three major pdp's, some of us are
> dramatically overworked, we sure need help. But not from ICANN, not in this
> way, not now.
>
> If ICANN wants to support the NCUC in policy development (of course, the
> NCUC traditionally does not do policy to any great extent, a mistake in my
> view)  there are ways to assist us with resources. The key is control of
> these resources. This program IMHO does not empower the NCUC;  if
> successful it could make us somewhat dependent upon ICANN for assistance
> with *policy*. Friends, if we can't research and draft and create policy
> positions ourselves then we don't deserve to exist.
>
> Three years ago I was opposed to accepting ICANN's offer of administrative
> help. It was not that I thought hiring someone (who turned out to be
> MaryAm) to assist with the tasks volunteers like Robin were then
> spending  far too much time doing would doom us to "company union" status.
> My opposition was based upon the fear that once we went down this slippery
> slope there was no turning back. My fear is being realised with this
> program.
>
> In our proposed response we seem to be asking ICANN for some of this type
> of support:
>
> - assistance with front end issue research
> - research on the background of the specific issue being addressed
> - join community calls/chats where "position setting" is focus
>
> This program is bering developed by an ICANN contractor WBC Global. Dan
> O'Neill is the Principal of the firm and is the one working on this program
> with ICANN. Dan's biography states:
>
>
> As the principal of the firm, he offers public policy, political and
> strategic business advice to Fortune 500 and other companies, with a focus
> on international trade, market access and intellectual property rights.  He
> represent companies before Congress, the White House and federal agencies
> on a diverse set of public policy matters including investment,
> international trade disputes, international tax, custom issues as well as
> economic sanctions issues.
>
> Recent activities on behalf of clients include: advising on the
> Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement on negotiations impacting
> intellectual property rights, investment and market access; lobby in
> support of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for Russia; strategizing
> and lobbying for companies having market access and IPR issues in China;
> advising on WTO negotiations on expansion of the Information Technology
> Agreement and renewed effort to secure an agreement on Services; and
> provide advice on the use of US trade preference programs for investment
> issues in developing countries.
>
> He also plays a leading role in business community activity with UN
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
>
>
>
> This is not someone I want anywhere near our Constituency. Mr. O'Neill
> spends his professional life advocating for positions and organisations
> that are traditionally opposed to that which the NCUC supports. He's not
> somebody with our interests at heart.
>
> If ICANN wants to support the NCUC in this area I have no problem with the
> NCUC accepting ICANN's financial support: provided we have complete
> independence in selecting the hire and defining the job. There are many in
> the nonprofit sector, many public interest organizations, we could contract
> with for policy help if we had the resources and freedom to do so. We can
> do better than joining a "pilot program" being organised by someone who has
> a "leading role in business community activity" within the IGF. In fact,
> instead of joining this program we should be questioning why WBC was hired.
>
> One other problem: If ICANN is going to pay people to do some of our
> policy work then why should anyone do other parts of our policy work for
> free? When I run political campaigns I keep paid canvassers completely
> separate from volunteer canvassers. I've found you lose the volunteers if
> you don't. Same thing here. If you look at the details of the proposal
> there is even a chance the help provided may be an active member of another
> part of the ICANN community. Amazing.
>
> I join Milton in hoping the EC rejects this. We do need help in this area
> but not under these terms. Our independence is very much at stake. Please,
> EC, keep ICANN and WBC Global away from direct involvement in  the
> noncommercial policy develkopmnent process. Do not go further down this
> slope leading to dependence upon ICANN for all that we do.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160425/4d67d09d/attachment-0002.html>